AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
i)To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the respondent’s order dated 11.01.22, 22.03.22, 29.4.22 and 19.09.22 i.e. Annexure A-1, Annexure No.2, Annexure No. 3 and A-4 respectively.
ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to replace the order of retirement and 11.01.22 to the retirement on invalidation instead of Superannuation in respect of official at Sl. No. 2 of the said memo dated 11.01.22 and or accept the option dated 31.01.22 for grant and release of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the light of the facts & circumstances of the case which this Hon’ble Cout may deem fit and proper.
iv) To order cost of petition to the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in the Postal Department on 26.05.1984 and was subsequently appointed as Postman. He retired on superannuation on 31.01.2022. During service, he suffered from serious eye problems and was declared 100% disabled by the Medical Board vide certificate dated 01.01.2022. The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare issued instructions dated 30.03.2021 regarding grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in cases of disability. Relying upon the said instructions, the applicant submitted the prescribed option and documents to respondent No. 3 on 31.01.2022, i.e. on the date of his retirement. The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 17.03.2022 and 28.06.2022 requesting consideration of his case for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the claim of the applicant has not been decided. The grievance of the applicant is that his claim was rejected without properly considering the instructions dated 30.03.2021 and the fact that he had exercised the option while he was still in service.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter reply, wherein it is stated that the applicant was appointed as a departmental Postman w.e.f. 27.11.2009. His date of birth is 15.01.1962 and he was posted at Udyog Nagar Post Office. He retired from service on 31.01.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the applicant submitted representations dated 08.02.2022 and 17.03.2022 claiming the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. His claim was examined by the competent authority and was rejected vide letter dated 22.03.2022, as he had entered regular departmental service only on 27.11.2009, i.e. after 01.01.2004, and was therefore covered under the New Pension System (NPS). The applicant, being aggrieved, filed the present Original Application seeking the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant, having joined as a departmental Postman after 01.01.2004, was not covered by the Old Pension Scheme and his pensionary benefits were accordingly governed by the applicable NPS rules. It is also relevant that subsequently the applicant submitted an application dated 19.05.2025 seeking to switch from NPS to the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS), which was processed by the respondents in accordance with the applicable provisions. In view of the above facts, the applicant has no claim for the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. The action of the respondents was in accordance with the applicable pension rules. Therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was working in the Postal Department since 26.05.1984 and was subsequently appointed as Postman. During service, he suffered from serious eye problems and was declared 100% disabled by the Medical Board on 01.01.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare had issued instructions dated 30.03.2021 regarding grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in cases of disability. The applicant exercised his option for pension under the said Rules on 31.01.2022 and submitted the necessary documents to the competent authority. It was further submitted that the applicant had been medically decategorized before his retirement and, therefore, his case ought to have been considered under Rule 10 of the CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021. Merely because the option was submitted on the date of retirement, it could not be a ground to reject his claim, particularly when the applicant had already suffered the disability during service. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the representations dated 17.03.2022 and 28.06.2022 were not properly considered by the respondents. The respondents failed to consider the instructions dated 30.03.2021 and the option exercised by the applicant. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider and grant pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was covered under the National Pension System (NPS), as he was appointed as a departmental Postman only w.e.f. 27.11.2009, i.e. after 01.01.2004. Therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant retired on 31.01.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. Although he claimed that he had been medically decategorized on 01.01.2022, he submitted his claim for invalid pension for the first time only on 31.01.2022, i.e. on the date of his retirement. It was further submitted that Rule 10 of the CCS (Implementation of NPS) Rules, 2021 requires a Government servant covered under NPS to exercise the prescribed option for availing the benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 in the event of death, disablement or retirement on invalidation. The applicant, however, did not exercise such option during service. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that the applicant was not declared medically invalid for service by the competent authority before his retirement. Therefore, his subsequent claim for invalid pension on the basis of his alleged medical disability could not be accepted. His retirement was on superannuation and not on invalidation. It was also submitted that the representations of the applicant were duly considered and were rejected in accordance with the applicable rules. The applicant was accordingly extended the benefits available under the NPS. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
Admittedly in this case applicant has been retired on 31.01.2022 as per applicant himself he was medically decategorized on dated 1.1.2022. It is also evident from the record that for the first time on dated 31.1.2022, applicant moved a representation before the competent authority for invalid pension.
Applicant stand is that in view of Rule 10 (1) of CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021, applicant prayer for invalid pension must have been considered.
The stand of respondents is that prayer for invalid pension is made on the last date of his retirement when he has not been declared medically decategorized by the respondents, thus, he was not allowed invalid pension. s
Before discussing the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote para 10 of the CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021:-
“10.Option to avail benefits on death or invalidation or disability of Subscriber during service: (1) Every Government servant covered under the National Pension System shall, at the time of joining Government service, exercise an option in Form 1 for availing benefits under the National Pension System or under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 in the event of his death or boarding out on account of disablement or retirement on invalidation. Government servants, who are already in Government service and are covered by the National Pension System, shall also exercise such option as soon as possible after the notification of these rules.
(2)The option shall be exercised to the Head of Office who will accept the same after verifying all the facts submitted therein and place it in the service book. A copy of the option shall be forwarded by the Head of Office to the Central Recordkeeping Agency through the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the Pay and Accounts Officer for their record. The Pay and Accounts Officer shall also make suitable entry in the online system indicating the details regarding the option exercised by the Government servant.
(3)(a) (i) Every Government servant shall, along with the option in Form 1, also submit details of family in Form 2 to the Head of Office;
(ii)If the Government servant has no family, he shall furnish the details in Form 2 as soon as he acquires a family.
(b)The Government servant shall communicate to the Head of Office any subsequent change in the size of his family, including the fact of marriage of his child.
(c)As and when a disability referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 54 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 manifests itself in a child which makes him unable to earn his living, the fact shall be brought to the notice of the Head of Office duly supported by a Medical Certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon. This may be indicated in Form 2 by the Head of Office. As and when the claim for family pension arises, the legal guardian of the child may make an application supported by a fresh medical certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, that the child still suffers from the disability”.
If the language used in Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules for exercising the option on the ground of invalidation pension is taken into consideration, it is contended in it that “who are already in Government service and is covered by the National Pension System shall also exercise such option as soon as possible after the notification of these rules”. Aforesaid phraseology used in Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates that option has to be exercised as soon as possible in the prescribed proforma after medically decategorization.
In this matter applicant moved simple representation for invalid pension on day of his retirement, he has not been declared medically decategorized by the respondents. In such a way, applicant’s prayer for granting him invalid pension on the basis of medically decategorization is not liable to be allowed. Since applicant was continuing in NPS scheme, thus, respondents have rightly extended the benefit available under NPS scheme. No illegality, infirmity and perversity are found in the impugned order. Thus, original application is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above discussion made hereinabove, the original application is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.